Kids losing school lunch due to federal SNAP cuts

 I have noted it several times on here already, but there is an opinion piece in The 74 discussing the loss of access to free meals due to SNAP cuts: 

Last summer, Congress made devastating cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, causing nearly 5 million Americans — including an estimated 1.5 million children — to lose their benefits. In doing so, those children lost their automatic eligibility for free school meals. Access to free meals is also now threatened for entire school districts in high poverty areas. This is a crisis hiding in plain sight, and as kids return to the classroom, it is hitting families and schools hard.

yes, most federal grant funding is still coming from the U.S. Department of Education

 With ongoing thanks to Mark Lieberman for keeping his eyes on this: 

Congress in February approved more than $12.5 billion for K-12 schools to flow to states on Oct. 1, including $10.8 billion through the Title I formula grant for schools serving low-income students and $1.7 billion through Title II for teacher professional development.

In a statement to Education Week, the department confirmed that those funds will go through the department’s existing G5 grants system, rather than through a portal run by the Department of Labor, where the Trump administration has moved most K-12 programs.

This was true of the round of funding that went out July 1; today's statement confirms the same will be true of the funding going out on October 1.  

We're losing kids on free lunch

 Hey, remember how we've noted that as we lose SNAP enrollment, we're going to lose free lunch enrollment?

That has now started to be seen happening, per EdWeek

In addition to Miami-Dade, some schools in nearby Palm Beach County, Fla., Houston, the San Antonio area, and Hardin County, Ky., have also announced the end of universal free meals in recent months because they no longer qualify for CEP.

Hysom anticipates more districts will follow suit.

A voucher by any other name

 ...still doesn't smell sweet, with all apologies to Shakespeare.

You may have noticed a recent flood of reporting around the--let's call them what they are!--vouchers that are a creation of the OB3 bill. This is due to Deputy Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy Kevin Salinger having delivered remarks in a closed-door session earlier this week which were subsequently released. The provision of the bill goes into effect in January; guidance was expected, well, now, but now we are told is coming the end of September. I think that this this summary from Education Counsel out of D.C., is also useful, as is this resource guide from In the Public Interest.

You might remember that this is a pass through: those able can donate to an organization that then provides scholarships from those funds to those eligible, in any state in which the governor has opted into the program, who are from a household with income no greater than 300% of the area’s median gross income. The voucher piece of this is a redirection of what would be federal tax dollars instead to, through the pass-through, private education; per K-12 Dive: 

Starting in 2027, taxpayers will be able to donate up to $1,700 annually to a scholarship-granting 501(c)(3) organization. They then would be eligible for a 100% federal income tax credit for their contributions.

You get a federal tax break if you do this. 

You might remember from the write-up I did of the first round of the Massachusetts push about this the rosy picture of what this can be spent on doesn't bear out. Josh Cowen, whose work on vouchers I appreciate a great deal, came out with what I'd characterize as a "get that money" post this week. As he outlines: 

Yes. Even under the most narrow interpretation of the law, school districts can provide services that students may purchase in addition to their state-funded base funding that comes with enrollment.

The key words there are "may purchase." This is not funding that flows to schools from the public education they, by law, already provide. This for additional programs that families can CHOOSE TO BUY from the school district, that the district creates (or I suppose already has, if a school already charges for some sort of bonus services). The problem, and I again think Peter Greene has outlined this well, is that this has nothing to do with the provision of public education to all students: 

...schools could be explicitly offering a Basic Minimum track. That Basic Minimum could be funded by local taxpayers, and everything offered in the Premium track would be funded with federal dollars, leaving the “extra” offerings at the mercy of donor generosity and federal rule-making. Instead of moving closer to fully funding public schools, federal vouchers will provide excuses to fund them less.

Again, these are not dollars that are going to flow into public schools to "support" programs we already are required to have. The only way this will go to public schools is if they are for shiny special programs that cost more and are outside of the requirements of the school. Anyone who argues otherwise hasn't done the reading. 

Cowen's main point (I think it is fair to say) is that these dollars are going to be coming from every state, and so every state should be sure that they can also receive them. I will say that this "money only flows out" argument doesn't hold a lot of water with me, as I am familiar with the way the federal revenue and expenses work with relationship to my state. 

I also don't buy the idea--agreeing with Joshua Weishart, who outlines it well in this thread--that there isn't a real cost to public education in this system. First, we have ongoing concerns over if federal education funding is going to continue and continue to serve those most in need. I do think this gives fodder to those looking for cuts, if what they see are 50 states opting into systems that remove dollars from federal public coffers and redirect them to private (or privately directed) education. We don't need Title I any more then, right? Or IDEA?

There is a basic question here: Do we believe in public education of all at the public expense or not? It thus isn't entirely a surprise at who we see, even here in Massachusetts, coming out in favor of such a program; this is another round of neo-liberal education reform, which was unfortunately popular on both sides of the aisle. To again quote Peter Greene: 

But what is not being discussed is the effect that such a system could have on the public school mission. From “we are going to try to give your child the best possible education we can afford” to “we are going to give your child the bare minimum and if you want more than that, you’ll have to either pay for it yourself or go shopping for a voucher.” From a system funded and controlled locally with assistance from the state to a system that depends on donations funneled through the federal government.

I will again say that I am concerned that this may have popularity near the Governor's office. We need to be clear: this is not money that can support the programs we need to provide in public schools. 

Weaponizing what's left of the Department of Education

 

trans colored heart on a sidewalk at Smith College
photo by Kate Hobbs

If you follow me on any social media platform other than this one, you've probably caught my ire that the U.S. Department of Education has now started a (well-publicized) investigation into my alma mater, Smith College for, they say, admitting men. Smith is the largest historically women's college in the country; the college started admitting women who are trans in 2015 (after an uproar over not doing so). The admission policy specifically says Smith:

considers for admission any applicants who self-identify as women; cis, trans, and nonbinary women are eligible to apply to Smith.

And a cheer for Shawnee Mission School District in Kansas

 ...which has not only refused to sign an agreement with the U.S. Department of Education regarding their "investigation" into the district's inclusion of trans students, they also extensively questioned the grounds of the investigation, and concluded with this: 

“Finally, the resolution agreement you have provided contains provisions that are inconsistent with the values that inform our work of supporting all children in our communities. We will never issue a policy that devalues certain members of our diverse community.”

May we all be so bold in defending our students.*

_____________________
*I wish my alma mater were being so public and bold.

Here comes the MA voucher push

 Because OB3, Trump's "One Big Beautiful Bill" has a provision for vouchers by state in the language, you knew that others would join the Boston Globe's editorial board in pushing for them in Massachusetts. Thanks to Yawu Miller's coverage of a recent panel at the JFK Presidential Library*, we now know not only that this is happening, but who the players are and what their talking points are going to be:

“Covid relief money is gone, inflation is bad, buses are expensive, special education is expensive,” former Massachusetts Education Commissioner Jeff Riley told an audience of about 200 that filled an auditorium at the museum last Wednesday. “We have an opportunity for this new pot of money to help us with things like expanded learning time, high dosage tutoring, special education services. This seems like a time when people should get together.”

Yes, taking time away from his fulltime job of trying to get schools on the AI bandwagon, our former Commissioner is all in our vouchers, but we're going to frame it as public school assistance. Also involved: 

The National Parents Union is spearheading the local coalition which aims to pressure Gov. Maura Healey to adopt the tax credit program. So far, the group counts 124 organizations in support, including The Pioneer Institute, The Boston Foundation, the Lynch Foundation, 45 individual Catholic Schools, 18 Montessori Schools, 13 Jewish day schools, the umbrella organizations supporting those types of schools and dozens of YMCAs and Boys and Girls Clubs.

NPU will surprise no one, nor will the private schools, but the outside of school organizations no doubt have this sold to them as after school dollars that could be coming their way.

Miller does---as always--an excellent job of framing the issues with the push, very much including that they don't actually work. But he also notes that Governor Healey, whose decision this is, so far has been silent on this issue. That is very concerning. There will be an effort to frame this as a "ed reform" issue, and she has some close to her that are in on that.

Oh, and incidentally: the list of things that Riley includes largely are not things on which the vouchers could be used: 

Despite promises that the scholarships could cover special education services, among other school-related expenses, Fliter said that wouldn’t be true for public schools. The way qualified education expenses are defined by the federal government only includes things for which schools bill parents.

“Unfortunately, when you dig into the text of the statute and what the regulations are from the IRS and from others, it becomes very clear that a qualified education expense, as it’s referenced in the Internal Revenue Code and by the Coverdell Education Savings Account, does not include anything like special education expenses,” Fliter said.

Read Miller's coverage, and then keep an eye out on this one.  

*who maybe don't exercise a say over this, but one does question the venue choice

Four things I would have preferred the House do this week

1.  Move forward the bar on religious exemptions for vaccinations. Just this week, the West Virginia bar withstood a federal appeals challenge. Just today, the AP is noting that babies too young for the MMR vaccine become "sitting ducks" in an outbreak. Given the anti-vaccine push by the federal government (as much as the courts are doing what they can), we cannot afford cracks in our community immunity. 
   
   
2. Do literally anything at all about Massachusetts being the only state in the country that has Democrats in charge of both chambers and the Governor's office and has a 287(g) contract with ICE. 
   Seriously. Anything at all. You could even pass a bill to make it illegal, like Maryland or Virginia, as that's the whole reason we have a legislature: making laws. 
   
   
3. Pass legislation protecting our immigrant neighbors from being preyed upon by the federal government, like the PROTECT Act, which passed out of committee two weeks ago, yet somehow was not seen as being as urgent as that bill on cell phones. I have been told they passed this? That missed my radar. One hopes it receives half the urgency from the rest of the process that this appears to have
    
4. Move forward the legislation that updates how inflation is calculated in the foundation budget, and make it effective for FY27, better aligning the foundation budget with district costs (and perhaps keeping us from the mistake of digging even bigger hold harmless aid holes).
   
   

please enjoy these pansies from my walk to work in Boston

Remember: on the federal budget, this is just the opening round

 You might be concerned or confused by headlines that came through over the weekend like this: 

Did we just DO a federal budget?
We did, but that one was overdue (thus the shutdown) and was the current federal fiscal year budget, 'though it funds next school year.

Now we're starting NEXT fiscal year, FY27, which for the federal government starts in October, which will funding school year 2027-28.

With me?

Now to the alarming headlines: you might remember that we also had alarming news from the initial proposal from the Trump administration for the current fiscal year, too. The House proposal was also alarming, and then the Senate put their feet down and we got a largely level funded federal budget.

So pay attention, but don't panic. 

Warding off vaccine rollback

 Yesterday, U.S. District Court Judge Brian Murphy halted the rollback of federal vaccine schedules and other policy changes. Per NPR: 

The judge ruled that Kennedy and his committee had made arbitrary and capricious decisions, ignoring a long-used, well-regarded scientific process for developing vaccine policies. He wrote in his ruling, "the government has disregarded those methods and thereby undermined the integrity of its actions."

The Washington Post: 

 “History is littered with once-universal truths that have since come under scrutiny,” the judge wrote. He added that even though science is not perfect, “nevertheless, science is still ‘the best we have.’”

The U.S. District Court judge from Massachusetts, who was appointed to the federal bench by President Joe Biden, wrote that the government bypassed the CDC’s vaccine advisory panel — which is how vaccine recommendations have been made for decades — to change the immunization schedule. He called it a “technical, procedural failure” and a “strong indication of something more fundamentally problematic: an abandonment of the technical knowledge and expertise embodied by that committee.”

and:

 The judge wrote that HHS cannot circumvent the long-standing practice of getting advice from the federal panel without offering an explanation “simply because they are following the President’s orders.”

He also wrote the government removed every member of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices and replaced them without undertaking the “rigorous screening” traditionally used to select members. The judge noted that “even under the most generous reading,” only six of the 15 members on the panel “have any meaningful experience in vaccines.”

The advisory panel was scheduled to meet Wednesday and Thursday, but that meeting has now been postponed, according to an HHS official. The judge temporarily suspended the appointment of 13 of the 15 panel members, finding they were not appointed properly. Therefore, he noted, that this week’s meeting could not take place. “For how can a committee meet without nearly the entirety of its membership?”

The federal government is expected to appeal. But every halt is more vaccines in more people.  

On Title I for next year

 

Slide from Friday presentation from MASC
slides here; recording here

This week, DESE updated superintendents (slides 10-18) and then those who manage grants that Title I for the upcoming year is expected to be less for the state and for districts in Massachusetts.

As I noted back at the beginning of February, the federal budget that was passed by Congress and signed into law pretty much level funded the federal entitlement grants. As both the White House and the House of Representatives had proposed budgets that cut grants in various ways and in some cases quite severely, that level funding was a victory.

However (and again as I noted), allocations to states and then in turn to districts are recalculated each year based on the demographics that determine funding. So, while the national number is the same, the way it is divided up changes each year. 

This year--this coming fiscal year for school districts--the state has learned that the Massachusetts share of the federal poverty total has dropped by 10%. That will in turn decrease the Massachusetts share of Title I funding, and, because the Massachusetts share is made up off Massachusetts districts, the district by district allocations will also be less.

The state has recommended that districts plan for a Title I allocation that is 85% of this year's allocation. They have also shared this spreadsheet, which both gives in the final column that 85% and also alerts districts that may be on the cusp of losing particular eligibilities within Title I (thus making their losses more severe).

Two things on Massachusetts school budgets

•  The United for Our Future coalition, which includes (among others) MASC, MASS, and the MTA, sent a letter calling for increased education state education funding to cover an array of issues. The Eagle-Tribune covers that here.
  
  The letter reads in part: 
  

  The “perfect storm” of factors behind the fiscal crisis remains in place. Rising special education and transportation costs, funding lost to charter schools, the constraints of Proposition 2 ½, and technical issues with the formula that determines how our schools are funded all continue to strain local budgets, as they have for years. In addition to those challenges, many districts also face looming threats of federal funding cuts along with unanticipated declines in enrollment spurred by federal attacks on our immigrant students and families. These enrollment declines are heartbreaking for our students and school communities and directly impact funding in a school finance system such as ours that is based on per-student allotments.
   When our districts are under-resourced, our attention is forced away from developing creative and innovative ways to enhance student learning and more effectively support their social and emotional wellbeing. Instead, we are left to fight to minimize devastating cuts to programs and staff so that we can try to maintain the basic, daily services on which our students depend. We cannot accept this situation as an unavoidable reality. As champions of public education, we know what work must be done to build public schools that prepare all students for success in the classroom and beyond, but local communities cannot do it alone.

we have a federal budget

 And when it comes to education funding, well, I'll let Mark Lieberman of EdWeek take this: 

You can read Mark's coverage (which I recommend) here. The highlight: 

Ultimately, Congress comprehensively rejected the Trump administration’s proposals to slash billions of dollars from federal education investments. Schools nationwide can expect roughly similar year-over-year funding levels this fall for key programs like Title I for students from low-income households, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act for special education services, Title II for professional development, and Title III for English learners.

The final legislation doesn’t require the Trump administration to halt efforts to shift Education Department programs to other agencies, and it doesn’t explicitly prohibit the administration from taking further steps to diminish the Cabinet-level agency.

It does, however, include requirements for the department to consult more closely with Congress on the status of its efforts to shift responsibilities to other agencies. It also includes nearly $400 million for Education Department staff compensation, only slightly less than for the previous fiscal year despite recent staff reductions that have nearly cut the agency’s ranks in half.

The legislation also supplies funding for several smaller agencies the Trump administration had already moved unilaterally to defund, including AmeriCorps and the Institute of Museum and Library Services.

Remember, we're now talking about next school year's funding: 

Most education funding is forward-funded, which means allocations for the current fiscal year will hit schools in the upcoming school year. Typically, formula funds for schools start flowing to states in July. Grant program competitions can happen throughout the year.

Do remember that both how much goes to each state and how much then goes to each district has to be recalculated each year based on the factors in the formula for each grant, so how much your district gets may not be the same as last year. But we aren't seeing the deep cuts that Trump campaigned on and continued to promise once elected.

They aren't popular. 

Open tabs tonight

 Tabs I have open tonight:

• I urge you to read "A Letter from a Minneapolis Mom" by Dara Moskowitz Grumdahl:
  

  This is the story of trying to be a good and moral mom in the city of Minneapolis over the last decade, just like Renee Good and Melissa Hortman were, and how you do it full of uncertainty, in between loads of laundry and grocery runs and kids rolling their eyes at you and generally thinking you’re reckless or a coward, between the Mother’s Day cards that tell you you’re the greatest mom ever

  
  
• Dana Wormald offers commentary on the New Hampshire House Education chair supporting schools segregation, tracing how this gets us (them?) further on support for vouchers.
  
  
• Mark Lieberman went back and did the math to come up with at least $12B that the Trump administration has interfered with in his first year in office.
  
  
• I do recommend reading Matt Barnum's take on the interview last week with Lindsay Burke, 'though I think he's being too generous in finding some explanation in why the federal education policy is incoherent. 
  
  
• I really cannot believe that Massachusetts has two chambers of the Legislature that have decided in all of the things we actually need them to do, they need to weigh in on how we teach kids to read. This straight-up swings the pendulum all one way on reading instruction, which is just not actually how it works¹. And they're going to make it state law, and then we'll be stuck. Such a disservice to us all.

__________________________________

¹stop calling it "evidence-based" and "high quality" in the coverage, by the way; those are not descriptors, but arguments

School in Minnesota this week

I know we're all tuned into different things at different amounts, so I thought I'd share a few things that perhaps you may have missed about school in Minnesota this week.

• The school attended by Renee Good's son Southside Family Charter School had to switch to online learning after threats. It's a teeny little school:
  

  The school was founded in the 1970s as a community initiative to help families, briefly served as an alternative school in Minneapolis Public Schools, and became a charter school in 2006.

  As it focuses on social justice, which was the focus of a New York Post article, it drew attention from...this isn't even a right wing thing. People who don't think children should work towards a more just world, I guess.
  
  

• St. Paul's schools have cancelled school for Tuesday and Wednesday this coming week (Monday is a holiday) to give time to prepare for a remote option for students which will start on Thursday the 22nd.

On Friday, Jan. 9, amid the federal enforcement crackdown following the Jan. 7 killing of Renee Good in Minneapolis, 51% of students whose home language is Spanish did not show up to school. That compares to absence rates around 20% during comparable days a year ago, in January 2025.
Students whose home language is Somali saw an absence rate of about 24% on Jan. 9, up from about 18% a year ago. Others, including Hmong and Karen speakers, saw small but noticeable increases in absences as well.

• As you may have seen, among the places Minneapolis residents have been keeping watch is around schools: 
  

  People who normally might be organizing parent-teacher association meetings are arranging security patrols at their kids' schools to watch for immigration agents. 

  Some parents not on patrol are escorting foreign-born teachers or staff members, driving them to and from their homes and schools to make them feel safer. Others are delivering groceries and prescription medicines to immigrant families who are too afraid to leave their homes or send their kids to class.
  

  You can read more about their work in this Minnesota Public Radio piece. 

If you're looking for ways to support those resisting ICE occupation of Minneapolis and the surrounding area, you can find ways to Stand with Minnesota here.

I was really struck this week by Jenny B. Potter's "I want to write about what it's like in Minnesota right now," which I saw on her Instagram. She also has links in her bio on ways to help.

Not about school specifically, but don't miss the Minneapolis Art Sled Rally, which was yesterday:

Some tabs I have open

•  If you're a history buff, you might be interested in the events going on across the state in commemoration of the 250th anniversary of the "Noble Train of Artillery," led by Henry Knox that brought the cannons of Fort Ticonderoga to Dorchester Heights. They crossed from New York into Massachusetts Saturday (Hillsdale, NY to Alford, MA, to be exact).
  As you may know, the cannons arriving at Dorchester Heights are what caused the British to leave Boston, which those who grew up in Suffolk County know well happened on March 17. 
  It'll be in Worcester January 31:
  

  Prior to the program at AAS, reenactors with horses and sleds, accompanied by fife and drum musicians, will walk from Worcester City Hall along Main Street to Institute Park.  The procession from City Hall will begin at 1:00 p.m.  At approximately 3:30 p.m., following the program at AAS, reenactors will fire a canon at Institute Park.

  
  
  
• Great work by Mississippi Today on student absence in Simpson County which actually looks at some of why students aren't in school: 
  

  Aaron Thompson drives his two elementary-aged children to school each day, but only when they aren’t sick or the road isn’t flooded. The family of four lives off a ragged stretch of concrete bounded on one side by a hunting trail and, on the other, by a worn bridge dotted with orange traffic cones....The reasons vary by family, with explanations oftentimes exposing a fraying social safety net now relying on younger helpers around the house to take care of elderly relatives and toddlers and teenage laborers in town, who work to contribute to their household income. 

   

• Intriguingly, Matt Barnum (now back at Chalkbeat) is having ​​Lindsey Burke, the current U.S. Department of Education’s deputy chief of staff for policy and programs, on a webinar on Wednesday at noon to discuss "why the administration wants to eliminate the agency, how officials are already working to do so, and what all this means for students, educators, and parents." I have RSVP'd, though I'm going to see how my blood pressure is doing by Wednesday before deciding to tune in or not. 

Minneapolis Public Schools cancelled for the rest of the week

 Note that the Minneapolis Public Schools have cancelled for the rest of the week; the following went out last night:

The plural on "incidents" is due to students outside of Roosevelt High School in Minneapolis being sprayed with "chemical irritants" by ICE yesterday afternoon, in addition, of course, to the slaying by ICE earlier in the day of mother and poet Renee Nicole Good.

Minnesota Public Radio has more on the Roosevelt High incident now: 

The move came after officials at Roosevelt High School said armed U.S. Border Patrol officers came on school property during dismissal Wednesday and began tackling people, handcuffed two staff members and released chemical weapons on bystanders. 

“The guy, I’m telling him like, ‘Please step off the school grounds,’ and this dude comes up and bumps into me and then tells me that I pushed him, and he’s trying to push me, and he knocked me down,” a school official, who spoke to MPR News on condition of anonymity said. 

“They don’t care. They’re just animals,” the official added. “I’ve never seen people behave like this.” 

 

To read so far this week

 Hey, we're off to a not-great beginning of the year here--among other terrible things, Massachusetts just had its first reported pediatric deaths from flu, so please get vaccinated, regardless of what RFK Jr says--and news in the education universe is likewise mixed. Here are some things I'd recommend reading:

• Politico takes a look at how Trump may further mess with education in 2026. Remarkably, this is NOT actually a depressing article!
  
  
• California, like Massachusetts, does not require kindergarten. CalMatters looks at if this might be the year that they do. 
  (California is at least discussing it; to my knowledge, this isn't being raised in Massachusetts at all.)
  
  
• Vermont is undergoing another look at their school district arrangement. As Vermont is largely rural, this Hechinger Report piece is relevant elsewhere.

Not that anyone asked me but: on state education priorities

In their past two meetings, the Board of Ed has established priorities; in November, for the FY27 budget request, and in December, for the Commissioner, which he proposed as being the foundation of a strategic plan. 

I'd first note--and I do realize that the Board here is constrained by state deadlines on budget--that the above is really backwards; you always want to establish your priorities before you do your budgeting. You set your values before you spend your money. 

With that in mind, then, let's consider first the priorities, with a connection to what one would then need for budgetary priorities. 

Let's first note that he started with this slide: 

...which I just find super disheartening as framing. Someday, someone is going to note? remember? that public education is guaranteed by the state "for the preservation of their rights and liberties" and that it is for the good not only of individual children, but for all of us. THAT is what we should be leading with, anytime we are asking how we are doing.

To do over your break: public comment now open on proposed federal prohibition on gender affirming care for young people.

PUBLIC COMMENT IS NOW OPEN on prohibiting gender affirming care for young people. Comments are open until February 17, 2026.

The grossly expressed summary: 

This proposed rule would require that a State Medicaid plan must provide that the Medicaid agency will not make payment under the plan for sex-rejecting procedures for children under 18 and prohibit the use of Federal Medicaid dollars to fund sex-rejecting procedures for individuals under the age of 18. In addition, it would require that a separate State Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) plan must provide that the CHIP agency will not make payment under the plan for sex-rejecting procedures for children under 19 and prohibit the use of Federal CHIP dollars to fund sex-rejecting procedures for individuals under the age of 19.

("sex-rejecting" is what they've come up with? Really?)

Flood 'em with comments!